Leaving Paris climate accord - an economic plus?

President Xi Jinping, right, meets with California Gov. Jerry Brown at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing to talk about climate change and the U.S. pullout of the Paris climate accords.

President Xi Jinping, right, meets with California Gov. Jerry Brown at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing to talk about climate change and the U.S. pullout of the Paris climate accords. (Li Xueren / AP)

Question: Will the U.S. economy benefit by backing out of the Paris climate agreement?

Phil Blair

Phil Blair, Manpower

He is not participating this week.

Kelly Cunningham

Kelly Cunningham, National University System

YES: The global agreement would somehow bind the economy to massive controls, hampering production, and transferring countless billions of dollars to other developing nations without voting by Congress. This attempt at central planning energy production with regulatory, redistributionist policies would subvert U.S. economic capacity and eliminate self-determination for ourselves while seeking to mandate foreign control over our social and economic fortunes. The energy industry sector is already capable and currently innovating solutions to curb carbon emissions.

David Ely

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: More workers will be able to remain employed in the traditional energy industries if withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement is accompanied by other federal actions that slow the development of clean energy technologies. Since the number of new jobs created in an expanding renewable energy industry is likely to exceed those lost in the coal and oil sectors, this decision by the Trump administration will diminish, not accelerate job growth across the economy.

Gina Champion-Cain

Gina Champion-Cain, American National Investments

NO: Reneging on the climate agreement is a geopolitical statement with no material economic impact. Innovators and legacy corporations alike are moving away from carbon energy sources. The economic drivers are all aligned, both short and long term, toward renewable options. California's clean energy economy now employees nearly 10 times that of the entire country's coal workforce; the economics are clear. Market forces, not participation in the Paris agreement, will lead the energy sector.

Alan Gin

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

NO: Some industries may benefit from withdrawing from the agreement, particularly those connected to fossil fuels. But these gains could be offset by harm through diminishing this country’s role in terms of green technology. There are already three times as many people employed in jobs connected to wind and solar energy as are employed in coal-related jobs. That is why the leaders of companies such as Tesla, Google, Microsoft, General Electric, and even Exxon Mobil are opposed to the withdrawal.

James Hamilton

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: The main progress that the U.S. made in reducing carbon emissions came not from any international agreements but instead from the fact that natural gas has been replacing coal as a source of energy to generate electricity. This represents improved economic efficiency, not harmful regulation. Climate change poses significant risks for the U.S. economy. But realistically, the Paris agreement only set up some broad goals and had not made much progress in solving the problem.

Gary London

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: I am not especially concerned, from an economic perspective, by the Trump pullout. In fact, I think there will be an economic upside as companies and state governments—and particularly consumers—go more rapidly green on their own through the production and consumption of green, carbon reduced and energy-efficient products. I am deeply disappointed from a political, compassionate and global leadership perspective. Mr. Trump has taken us out of the global dialogue about how to deal with climate change. Virtually no one benefits from this act of political belligerence.

Norm Miller

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: This question requires dissecting into short term and long term and by industry sector, but net long term, we must internalize the costs of polluting air and water if we care about future generations, i.e. Los Angeles once had dense smog that caused illness but none of that was priced into the cost of gasoline. Few will benefit from backing out of the Paris accord. Hopefully states will do what is best, in spite of Trump’s arrogant position.

Jamie Moraga

Jamie Moraga, IntelliSolutions

YES: The concept of the Paris agreement was good but it wasn’t fair. It was estimated by 2035 that the U.S. would have seen trillions lost in GDP, a double-digit percent increase in household electricity costs, and several hundred thousand jobs eliminated. The U.S. would have bent over backwards to the detriment of the U.S. taxpayer while some of the biggest polluters in the world got a free pass. To protect our environment and address climate change, we need a better deal that applies equally to all. I hope a new agreement is negotiated to address this very important issue.

Austin Neudecker

Austin Neudecker, Rev

NO: Short-term, the stock prices of corporations connected to fossil fuels will increase. Reduced regulations will enable these companies to make more profit, while alternative energy still represents less of the economy. Long-term, the scientific community agrees that the impact of the continued pollution of our air and water, worse storms and rising tides will cause catastrophic damage (trillions of dollars) to our livelihood. Could PACs and lobbyist money have motivated these changes? I think so.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

YES: The Paris accord in effect reduces development for the industrialized world and stunts growth for the developing world. The negative economic impact of instituting the regulations called for in the agreement is significant. Policies that restrict the use of carbon-based energy in America will cut jobs and slow economic growth. Regardless of one’s opinions on the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures, the sacrifices will generate a marginal impact on global temperatures.

Lynn Reaser

Lynn Reaser, Point Loma Nazarene University

NO: There will be little economic impact. The Paris accord set voluntary targets for greenhouse gas emissions but did not specify how those goals are to be met. The president had already nullified many regulations on the energy industry. Market and other forces could enable 2025 emissions objectives to still be met. These include the price advantage of natural gas over coal, innovations in clean energy technology, the impact of consumer demand on companies’ policies, and the actions of state and local governments.

John Sarkisian

John Sarkisian, SKLZ

NO: Per the accord the earliest the U.S. can withdraw from the agreement is 2020. The U.S. is moving to clean energy and restorable resources. This move will continue despite the potential withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. Jobs will continue to be created in these clean energy areas. Just look at what our local company, SDG&E, is doing to move to clean energy. Today nearly 43 percent of SDG&E energy is from renewable resources such as wind and solar.

Chris Van Gorder

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: There might be an economic benefit from reduced energy and environmental regulations, but higher labor costs -- not these regulations – are the main reason America struggles to complete globally, especially in the industrial sector Trump is trying to protect. And any economic benefit gained from backing out will be short-lived, while the impact of climate change will not. The environment needs a global approach and the United States should be part of it.